Case Law
- Australia: Administrative Appeals Tribunal 36
- Australia: Federal Circuit Court 1
- Australia: Federal Court 60
- Australia: Federal Magistrates Court 71
- Australia: High Court 7
- Australia: Immigration Review Tribunal 1
- Australia: Refugee Review Tribunal 324
- Austria: Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) 1
- Canada: Federal Court 33
- Canada: Federal Court of Appeal 2
- Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 4
- Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights 15
- Czech Republic: Superior Court 3
- European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union 2
- Finland: Helsinki Administrative Court 1
- France: Commission des Recours des Réfugiés (CRR) 2
- India: Magistrate Courts 1
- Ireland: High Court 13
- Ireland: Supreme Court 2
- Netherlands, The: Council of State (Raad van State) 1
- New Zealand: High Court 4
- New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal 15
- New Zealand: Refugee Status Appeals Authority 118
- Poland: Provincial (Voivodship) Administrative Court 1
- South Africa: High Court 1
- Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral 2
- Ukraine: District Courts 1
- UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) 1
- UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) 1
- United Kingdom: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Immigration Appellate Authority 42
- United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) 24
- United Kingdom: Court of Session (Scotland) 12
- United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) 14
- United Kingdom: High Court (Northern Ireland) 1
- United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) 7
- United States Board of Immigration Appeals 1
- United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 8
- United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 5
- United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 4
- United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 1
- United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 17
- United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 1
- United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 7
- United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 7
- United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 1
- United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 2
- Afghanistan 40
- Albania 4
- Algeria 4
- Armenia 2
- Australia 501
- Austria 1
- Azerbaijan 1
- Bahrain 3
- Bangladesh 25
- Belarus 1
- Belgium 1
- Bhutan 2
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Bulgaria 1
- Cambodia 2
- Canada 40
- China 234
- Congo, Democratic Republic of the 1
- Croatia 2
- Czech Republic 5
- Côte d'Ivoire 2
- Denmark 1
- Egypt 33
- Eritrea 14
- Ethiopia 7
- Fiji 3
- Finland 1
- France 5
- Georgia 1
- Germany 2
- Ghana 4
- Guinea 2
- Guyana 1
- Hungary 1
- India 46
- Indonesia 9
- Iran, Islamic Republic of 77
- Iraq 49
- Ireland 15
- Israel 8
- Japan 1
- Jordan 4
- Kazakhstan 2
- Kenya 2
- Korea, Republic of 3
- Kuwait 3
- Kyrgyzstan 3
- Latvia 2
- Lebanon 25
- Liberia 1
- Malaysia 20
- Mexico 1
- Moldova, Republic of 1
- Mongolia 1
- Montenegro 3
- Morocco 4
- Myanmar 5
- Nepal 8
- Netherlands 4
- New Zealand 136
- Nicaragua 1
- Nigeria 29
- Pakistan 91
- Palestine, State of 2
- Philippines 1
- Poland 1
- Romania 8
- Russian Federation 12
- Samoa 1
- Saudi Arabia 5
- Senegal 1
- Serbia 4
- Slovakia 1
- Somalia 2
- South Africa 2
- Sri Lanka 12
- Sudan 3
- Sweden 5
- Switzerland 2
- Syrian Arab Republic 3
- Tajikistan 3
- Thailand 4
- Turkey 16
- Uganda 1
- Ukraine 8
- United Arab Emirates 1
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 101
- United States of America 57
- Uzbekistan 10
- Viet Nam 7
|
WA (PAKISTAN) v. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
the appropriate guidance for a decision-maker can be summarised as follows: i) Is the Claimant genuinely an Ahmadi? In answering that question the guidance set out in paragraph 5 of the headnote in MN is well expressed. ii) The next step involves an inquiry into the Claimant’s behaviour if he or she is returned to Pakistan. Will he or she actually behave in such a way as to attract persecution? In answering that question, the decision-maker will again consider all the evidence and will, where appropriate, expressly consider whether the behaviour claimed by the asylum-seeker is genuinely an expression of their religious belief and is an authentic account of the way they will behave if returned. iii) If the decision-maker’s conclusion is that the Claimant, if returned to Pakistan, will avoid behaviour which would attract persecution, then the decision-maker must ask the question why that would be so. Many possibilities arise. The individual may genuinely wish to live quietly, and would do so whether or not repression existed in relation to the expression of his or her Ahmadi faith. The individual may have mixed motives for such behaviour. If such a quiet expression or manifestation of genuine Ahmadi belief is merely the result of established cultural norms or social pressures, then it is unlikely there will be a basis for asylum. However, if a material reason (and not necessarily the only reason) for such behaviour will be to avoid persecution, then it is likely that the Claimant will have a valid claim for asylum. There is no requirement that public expression of Ahmadi religious faith, of a kind which is likely to attract persecution, should be of “particular importance” to the Claimant. Such a requirement is inconsistent with the test as laid down in HJ (Iran). To that extent, the guidance given in the body of MN (Ahmadis) Pakistan CG and in the headnote is misleading and should not be followed. 6 March 2019 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Ahmadis - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) | Countries: Pakistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland |
|
Decision 201701423/1/V2
21 November 2018 | Judicial Body: Netherlands, The: Council of State (Raad van State) | Topic(s): Gender-based persecution - Persecution based on political opinion - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - Sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) - Women's rights - Women-at-risk | Countries: Afghanistan - Netherlands |
|
Decision TB7-01837 (Jurisprudential Guide, in private), Heard at Refugee Appeals Division, Toronto, Ontario
Jurisprudential Guide: Whether the treatment experienced by Ahmadis from Pakistan amounted to persecution and whether state protection and an internal flight alternative are available. 8 May 2017 | Judicial Body: Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada | Topic(s): Ahmadis - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - State protection | Countries: Canada - Pakistan |
|
Decision TB7-01837 (Jurisprudential Guide, in private), Heard at Refugee Appeals Division, Toronto, Ontario
Jurisprudential Guide: Whether the treatment experienced by Ahmadis from Pakistan amounted to persecution and whether state protection and an internal flight alternative are available. 8 May 2017 | Judicial Body: Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada | Topic(s): Ahmadis - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - State protection | Countries: Canada - Pakistan |
|
Decision TB7-01837 (Jurisprudential Guide, in private), Heard at Refugee Appeals Division, Toronto, Ontario
Jurisprudential Guide: Whether the treatment experienced by Ahmadis from Pakistan amounted to persecution and whether state protection and an internal flight alternative are available. 8 May 2017 | Judicial Body: Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada | Topic(s): Ahmadis - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - State protection | Countries: Canada - Pakistan |
|
Decision TB7-01837 (Jurisprudential Guide, in private), Heard at Refugee Appeals Division, Toronto, Ontario
Jurisprudential Guide: Whether the treatment experienced by Ahmadis from Pakistan amounted to persecution and whether state protection and an internal flight alternative are available. 8 May 2017 | Judicial Body: Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada | Topic(s): Ahmadis - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - State protection | Countries: Canada - Pakistan |
|
Decision TB7-01837 (Jurisprudential Guide, in private), Heard at Refugee Appeals Division, Toronto, Ontario
Jurisprudential Guide: Whether the treatment experienced by Ahmadis from Pakistan amounted to persecution and whether state protection and an internal flight alternative are available. 8 May 2017 | Judicial Body: Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada | Topic(s): Ahmadis - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - State protection | Countries: Canada - Pakistan |
|
Decision TB7-01837 (Jurisprudential Guide, in private), Heard at Refugee Appeals Division, Toronto, Ontario
Jurisprudential Guide: Whether the treatment experienced by Ahmadis from Pakistan amounted to persecution and whether state protection and an internal flight alternative are available. 8 May 2017 | Judicial Body: Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada | Topic(s): Ahmadis - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - State protection | Countries: Canada - Pakistan |
|
Decision TB7-01837 (Jurisprudential Guide, in private), Heard at Refugee Appeals Division, Toronto, Ontario
Jurisprudential Guide: Whether the treatment experienced by Ahmadis from Pakistan amounted to persecution and whether state protection and an internal flight alternative are available. 8 May 2017 | Judicial Body: Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada | Topic(s): Ahmadis - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - State protection | Countries: Canada - Pakistan |
|
Decision TB7-01837 (Jurisprudential Guide, in private), Heard at Refugee Appeals Division, Toronto, Ontario
Jurisprudential Guide: Whether the treatment experienced by Ahmadis from Pakistan amounted to persecution and whether state protection and an internal flight alternative are available. 8 May 2017 | Judicial Body: Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada | Topic(s): Ahmadis - Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - State protection | Countries: Canada - Pakistan |
